If the U.S. succeeds to place Ebonics as a language variety besides the common English, then there's a chance that socialist government or political organization might influence the Education ministry as well as the intellectual society to reconsider and/or further the concept.

What I'm stating is that the concept is stupid since it's biologically impossible to make something different than X(feminization) and Y(masculinization) and this you do not learn in social circles but in the biological topics of Sexual Differentiation. When mutations, if any (preposterous), begin congenially leaning towards a third option, only then there's a necessity for the linguistic changes.

The thing I notice when thinking about languages and genders is that, as far as my language understanding goes(English and some Spanish), there usually aren't gender-neutral singular pronouns. English has pronouns such as he, him, her, and she, but the closest you can get to a gender-neutral pronoun is they, which is plural. Spanish has el and ella, but no gender-neutral singular pronoun as far as I know. Though I do agree that of the languages I do know, English does seem to be the least gender based. He is running and she is running are the same sentences, with different pronouns, same with he is smart and she is smart. There's also only one they, instead of two different ones for the two main genders. I dunno, but these are just some thoughts I have at times. Thoughts are cool, ya know?

Current LD goal(s): Control an element, Teleport, Become Seaweed, Move at Full Speed

"They" as 3rd person singular? First time I've heard that.
I think it'll just fall short into colloquialism, as many trends do.

If the U.S. succeeds to place Ebonics as a language variety besides the common English, then there's a chance that socialist government or political organization might influence the Education ministry as well as the intellectual society to reconsider and/or further the concept.

What I'm stating is that the concept is stupid since it's biologically impossible to make something different than X(feminization) and Y(masculinization) and this you do not learn in social circles but in the biological topics of Sexual Differentiation. When mutations, if any (preposterous), begin congenially leaning towards a third option, only then there's a necessity for the linguistic changes.

Blaming the languages for not having such option is a bit out there.

you may be interested to know that what you learned in intro biology class about XX and XY is a simplification. it is likely that you have an acquaintance who is neither of those two, though they likely don't know it. XXY is the most common variation.

as you hinted at, government standards and educational requirements change the way people think. it is not surprising that most people think XX and XY are the only possibilities, as this is what they are required to be taught. i wouldnt blame anyone for assuming this is true before they learn otherwise.

in addition, there are a variety of intersex conditions that put almost 2% of people into a space where the whole male/female concept is less clear. some percentage of those will have received surgery at birth to make them appear on one side or the other. again, they may not know themselves that this has happened, and it likely affects someone you are acquainted with.

i learned a lot about these kinds of things after being in a position of responsibility over a couple people who, it turned out, did not fit so neatly into the rules i was expected to enforce. it is difficult to intellectualize away the reality of human beings when they are in front of you and their well being depends on you.

you also may be interested to know that recently many official platforms and style guides in english updated to officially accept "they" as a 3rd person singular. this is something most people dont know as most people are not familiar with working with publications that have style guides, only with reading the results.

i think this is a sign that "they" as a 3rd person singular has gotten past the largest hurdles and will receive mainstream acceptance. it has been in the language, at least among some people, for many years. but before recently, major publications would consider it a grammatical mistake even when a source uses it or an interviewee prefers it and remove it to conform with the style guide.

now that an increasing number of style guides no longer demand editing away this linguistic reality, it will become more common in your experience as a reader and not seem so strange, i think!

i was surprised when i came up against this issue and started to realize just how many rules and standards are designed to hide a reality that i was artificially taught not to see. the way ive come to see it now, the supposed change in language and thought around gender is less of a change and more about seeing what has been there all along.

you may be interested to know that what you learned in intro biology class about XX and XY is a simplification. it is likely that you have an acquaintance who is neither of those two, though they likely don't know it. XXY is the most common variation.

It's supposed to be as simple as it can get If you want to specify that a sexual intercourse in the human species has an integer "Z" somewhere in between, then it would be noted as the "3rd personality". Female and Male are the only acceptable biological expositions. Frankly, I do not see your point as clear. Yes, people with deformities do exist if that's what you're pointing at.

Quote:

as you hinted at, government standards and educational requirements change the way people think. it is not surprising that most people think XX and XY are the only possibilities, as this is what they are required to be taught. i wouldnt blame anyone for assuming this is true before they learn otherwise.

I question the motives for the change, for instance, since most of those are pushed forward solely to gain some points in the public eyes with a specific group and/or a specific agenda given by specific high profiled people who'd find solstice in pursuing such a change that would not feel naturally progressive but, rather, forced. Same method was used throughout the history to no avail, I'm afraid.
Now, you state that XX and XY aren't the only possibilities in terms of the human species. This would need some elaboration on your part since, frankly, I've no idea how you may conclude that about the human species. I never saw 3rd sex nor that such a thing exists. Combinations of both female and male reproductive organs which would be considered a deformation, yes, but something out of that - no.

Quote:

in addition, there are a variety of intersex conditions that put almost 2% of people into a space where the whole male/female concept is less clear. some percentage of those will have received surgery at birth to make them appear on one side or the other. again, they may not know themselves that this has happened, and it likely affects someone you are acquainted with.

But why stop there? Why make gender based changes in the language only? Why not to make a particular form for people who need to wear glasses and/or prosthetic arms? Why are genitalia so important, especially to the transsexuals? Why are transsexuals only ones who need to be referred to in some specific form that's akin only to them in particular solely for the sake of a PC friendly environment? 2% of the world's population is such a strong overestimation of the transsexual populace. And what about asexual people? Clearly they need a gender-neutral grounds for the language based dedication that fits their general agenda...Something like... Furlolalel and transsexuals could use Furlolaleletetheteth (kinda Shakespearean).
Like...like...Furlolalel may drink tea at this very moment. Furlolalel may mind the gap.
I hope that it's clear why I think that boosting someone's ego by pampering to their genitalia...hmm..."orientation", specifically in terms of the sexuality which is more psychological than anything else, should come as such a splendidly idiotic idea when incorporated in the language itself.

And if special editions of Shakespearean literature needs to be used... Furlolaleletetheteth.

Quote:

i learned a lot about these kinds of things after being in a position of responsibility over a couple people who, it turned out, did not fit so neatly into the rules i was expected to enforce. it is difficult to intellectualize away the reality of human beings when they are in front of you and their well being depends on you.

I usually do not get swayed away by people's emotions when it comes down to the logic and science.
Psychology itself isn't hard science, but biology is.

Quote:

you also may be interested to know that recently many official platforms and style guides in english updated to officially accept "they" as a 3rd person singular. this is something most people dont know as most people are not familiar with working with publications that have style guides, only with reading the results.

And Trump's president. ME and Trends aren't akin one to another, especially when trends are used to influence younger populations into believing ludicrous things...like the existence of the 3rd gender in the human biology...

Quote:

i think this is a sign that "they" as a 3rd person singular has gotten past the largest hurdles and will receive mainstream acceptance. it has been in the language, at least among some people, for many years. but before recently, major publications would consider it a grammatical mistake even when a source uses it or an interviewee prefers it and remove it to conform with the style guide.

It IS a major mistake to use "They". Furlolaleletetheteth would make it far more interesting and people might learn a thing or two in the process.
Just think of all the sexist jokes starting as "They them They That"....Oh, mercy.

Quote:

now that an increasing number of style guides no longer demand editing away this linguistic reality, it will become more common in your experience as a reader and not seem so strange, i think!

I don't think so. No offense.

Quote:

i was surprised when i came up against this issue and started to realize just how many rules and standards are designed to hide a reality that i was artificially taught not to see. the way ive come to see it now, the supposed change in language and thought around gender is less of a change and more about seeing what has been there all along.

Yes, that nasty Biology teaching people that humans reproduce with male and female genitalia... if only human feelings were more important... our language would be so much richer.

Tagalog and Bahasa speaker, here. I totally blame the English language for not having such an option from the infancy of the language, because it's such an unnecessary distinction everywhere else in life. If gender matters in any situation, you could infer it from context English is a terribly persnickety language and I dislike it very much.

Especially when using the female terms, it feels unnatural, like the term was invented for the sole purpose of giving distinction that this person is a female.

I do rather like the word "princess". Its dignity and grace seem to have a life of their own, which no number of waspish and balding royal spinsters can quite suppress. I suspect that the grating quality of words like "actress", "doctress", "stewardess" owes more to the fact that they are artificial coinages, made necessary by the fact that women only recently began to have these rÃ´les. The fault, if there is one, then lies more with society than language. Old gendered words, such as princess, countess, redemptrix, chÃ¢telaine, vicereine, queen, canoness, poetess etc. feel beautiful, natural and strong to me - they each contain something that is not quite contained in the sense of their masculine counterparts; but they may strike you differently.

Reading your post, I was reminded of a passage in one of my best-beloved novels, C.S. Lewis' Perelandra; he was, of course, a very erudite linguist himself, much like Tolkien. It's in the spoiler below.

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)

Both the bodies were naked, and both were free from any sexual characteristics, either primary or secondary. That, one would have expected. But whence came this curious difference between them? He found that he could point to no single feature wherein the difference resided, yet it was impossible to ignore. One could tryâ€“Ransom has tried a hundred timesâ€“to put it into words. He has said that Malacandra was like rhythm and Perelandra like melody. He has said that Malacandra affected him like a quantitative, Perelandra like an accentual, metre. He thinks that the first held in his hand something like a spear, but the hands of the other were open, with the palms towards him. But I donâ€™t know that any of these attempts has helped me much. At all events what Ransom saw at that moment was the real meaning of gender. Everyone must sometimes have wondered why in nearly all tongues certain inanimate objects are masculine and others feminine. What is masculine about a mountain or feminine about certain trees? Ransom has cured me of believing that this is a purely morphological phenomenon, depending on the form of the word. Still less is gender an imaginative extension of sex. Our ancestors did not make mountains masculine because they projected male characteristics into them. The real process is the reverse. Gender is a reality, and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the adaptation to organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings. Female sex is simply one of the things that have feminine gender; there are many others, and Masculine and Feminine meet us on planes of reality where male and female would be simply meaningless. Masculine is not attenuated male, nor feminine attenuated female. On the contrary, the male and female of organic creatures are rather blurred reflections of masculine and feminine. Their reproductive functions, their differences in strength and size, party exhibit, but partly also confuse and misrepresent, the real polarity. All this Ransom saw, as it were, with his own eyes. The two white creatures were sexless. But he of Malacandra was masculine (not male); she of Perelandra was feminine (not female).

Current LD goal(s): Bring Respiral back to life!Link to My DJ: ld4all.com